National pact delays contract for local union
Podcast Episode
Kyle Geissler talks with Janesville Gazette business editor Jim Leute about local GM contract talks.
Photo 
John Dohner Jr.
JANESVILLE — Hurry up and wait.
That’s the best characterization of facility-specific negotiations between representatives of General Motors and the United Auto Workers at auto plants across the country.
Last fall, the UAW ratified a four-year national contract with GM. Negotiations on local contracts, which cover operations at specific plants, started last summer but have been delayed by the landmark national agreement.
“We’re still working, still meeting,” John Dohner Jr., GM shop committee chairman for UAW Local 95, said of contract discussions in Janesville.
While negotiations on local contracts typically linger beyond national agreements, it would be unusual for local negotiations to continue into February.
But this contract is different, and directives from the national parties have tied the hands of local negotiators.
At the root of the delay is the national contract’s language on a new two-tier wage system that classifies jobs as either “core” or “non-core.” Core jobs, those directly connected to the assembly line, pay about $28 per hour, while the non-core jobs pay about half of that.
Determining what are core and non-core jobs takes time, and company and union officials at the national level are visiting nearly every plant to help makes those determinations.
Dohner said the parties have not visited the Janesville plant, which has about 2,500 hourly and 200 salaried workers. But they are expected, he said.
Further complicating the issue is an employee attrition program that GM is expected to announce this week. Such a buyout plan would likely reduce employment levels at plants around the country, making today’s headcounts and job classifications worthless in a couple of months.
GM Chairman Rick Wagoner said over the weekend that the automaker is working with the UAW to determine how the second phase of a new attrition program would be rolled out and who will be eligible. In December, GM announced the first phase, which offered buyouts to 5,200 workers at GM service, parts and operations facilities nationwide as well as a handful of facilities already closed or targeted for closure.
The employee reductions are part of GM’s efforts to cut costs, a move that one labor analyst said over the weekend could put GM’s U.S. hourly labor costs below those of Toyota by 2011.
Sean McAlinden of the Center for Automotive Research said the recent national contract will cut GM’s labor cost per vehicle in North America by about $1,382 by 2011.
“General Motors may have not only eliminated its labor cost gap with Toyota Motor Corp. in North America, it may actually be at an advantage,” McAlinden told journalists at the Detroit Auto Show.
One of the reasons for that, he said, is the two-tier wage system that corporate and union officials are rolling out on a plant-by-plant basis.
McAlinden said GM is expected to replace nearly 40 percent of its 72,280 hourly workforce by 2011. That will reduce its total labor costs from $62 per hour for top-tier workers to about $26 per hour for 20,000 workers and $47 per hour for about 9,000 workers.
“They won’t be any more expensive than $47 an hour,” McAlinden said. “Why is $47 important? That is the Toyota-estimated, all-in labor cost in the United States.”
Material from McClatchy-Tribune was used in this story.
Jan 17, 2008 at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Benthinkin:
You are correct "Unions were created to fill a need at the time" Yes, that "time" was decades ago. The adoption of a 40 hour work week (FLSA) occured in 1938
93% of all U.S. private sector employees are not unionized. This is down from 20% in 1983. If work conditions are so poor why do 9 out of 10 people voluntarily work without a union? Because employees believe they are treated fairly.
Some union activists are willing to kill the golden goose, for the sake of the union-John Sweeney comes to mind. Its easy for Sweeney to be a militant union activist, he doesnt have to work on the line, his salary and lavish perks are paid for by the rank and file.
Jan 17, 2008 at 2:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytake4u...do you honestly believe that just because GM pays its workers less and has less workers to pay that the price of a vehicle will come down? History has already proven you wrong. GM pays the workers at the plant in Mexico far less than they pay even the lowest paid worker in the US. Now go out and compare the price of a Tahoe built in Janesville with the price of one built in Silao, Mexico. Wait, I'll save you the trip......THEY'RE THE SAME PRICE!!
Jan 16, 2008 at 9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wrong, e-wife, unions achieved the 40 houre work week.
Jan 16, 2008 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Actually, housewife, you are wrong. Unions ARE responsible for the 40-hour work-week.
http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bios/askus34...
Jan 16, 2008 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
You really need to read up on union history before making uninformed statements about what the union did and did not do for it's workers.
Unions are a victim of their own success. Many of todays standards came out of union activity and now that they are in place people think that with all of these standards why do we need a union.
Unions were created to fill a need at the time. If management does not like unions then they should've never created the need for them in the 1st place.
Jan 16, 2008 at 3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Unions should disappear all together. They should be illegal.
Jan 16, 2008 at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Actually, Unions are not responsible for the 40 hour workweek and weekends off.
That is due to specializing and automation. First break a big job down (like Ford's assembly line) then make it easier with machines. Added technology has done more for the worker then the Unions.
Jan 16, 2008 at 6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Fair labor standards act did for the american worker what unions started out doing. Unions are no longer needed. I believe in getting paid for what you know and how long you have been doing it. I agree that we need to start attracting more business, the eventual loss of GM may be not to far away - can Rock County survive that? I think we can if we start preparing now..
Jan 16, 2008 at 5:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
i cannot believe it!!!! someone suggesting that me or most anyone with common economical sense would be even remotely concerned that GM can pay less in wages and benifits for entry level workers. reasonable pricing must start somewhere and lowering manufacturing costs is a darn good beginning. i do agree one must be concerned that after lowering the cost of manufacturing GM may "take the money and run" but that is something the soon to be democrat administrations commerce department will have to determine. many people in this country cannot afford a new automoble, let alone one that includes the employee discount. i feel the union has many more issues to deal with. i have first hand observation that there is an extrodinary number of drinking going on during work hours at the BIG 2 uaw shops in town. employees leaving the premisis while on the clock is another huge abuse at #2 uaw shop. total disregard for others personal property and the law. so you see, if employees would receive a reasonable, not abusively high wage and GM would be satisified with just a few billion dallars profit then the fear of a recession would be unfounded.
Jan 16, 2008 at 1:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
The sooner Gm is no longer the "backbone" of our local economy, the better. It will force our city planners to actually think when it comes to attracting business here. We need a much more varied manufacturing base than GM and its local suppliers.
Jan 15, 2008 at 10:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
My experience was an "opt out" system whereas the political action portion was automatically paid as part of the dues unless you requested in writing that you did not want any part of your dues going for that purpose. Yes it can be an intimidating process to opt out, but I am not aware of any laws to force a different procedure. I believe the process would be up to the union as long as it does provide that option.
Jan 15, 2008 at 10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
The union is giving away everything that people have fought for in the past. Doesn't it bother anyone that GM is hiring people for lower wages and less benefits? Eventually everyone working there will be making much less and GM will no longer be the backbone of the local economy. The workers will no longer be able to buy their own products and will no longer have the extra income to help support local businesses. Other companies will decide to offer their new workers lower wages and everyone's standard of living will be affected.
Jan 15, 2008 at 10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heat:
In Wisonsin, does the state require that membership organizations that use the dues of members to make contributions to candidates or political committees, first obtain the written permission of individual dues-paying members?
Currently, are members are automatically assessed unless they formally express their desire to opt out, which can be a difficult and intimidating process?
I dont have any remedy for this, its a consequence of free speech in a free society. WI is a forced unionism state, the UAW is not in hurry to have its members sign off, because they are not in danger of losing members, the good news is that GM is becoming more competitive which hopefully allows the doors at the Janesville Plant to remain open.
Jan 15, 2008 at 9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the leadership of a union is voted in by the majority then are we not asking them to represent us collectively? If they are backing a certain political party within the laws and rules of the government and the union then I believe they should be allowed to do so. I have been paying union dues for decades and I have never voted along party lines. I always vote for the best person, not a party.
The fact that a portion of my dues goes to a party and I don't like that is my problem. IF I am bothered enough by it, I can run for office and try to make change to it. If not, well I agreed to have them represent me.
Jan 15, 2008 at 8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
In Wisconsin you are only required to pay that portion of dues that go towards collective bargaining and can request a refund of any portion that is used for political action.
Jan 15, 2008 at 8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Benthinkin:
I know that all of the UAW dues paying members are not democrates. However, their political agenda is taken directly out of the democratic playbook.
Lets assum 40% are registered republicans and for argumnet sake 60% are registered democrate, shouldnt those republican dues payin member receive a refund of the percentage of dues that is used to support the democratic party agenda?
Jan 15, 2008 at 6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
While it is true that the UAW is supportive of the Democratic party that does not mean that all members are registered Democrats.
As with many grouping situations a consensus is reached for the group as a whole. That does not mean that all members support it, but that the majority support it.
As for the leadership, they are not just fighting for the members, but are also fighting to keep GM alive and viable. They realize that without GM there is no UAW and I think the leadership is doing a good job in the given situation.
Jan 15, 2008 at 5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Str8:
Who are the little people that you speak of?
I would guess that the local UAW and the National UAW have very little in common. Presumably, the UAW collects a percentage of member's wages as dues, and then spend that money fighting for labor rights and negotiating labor contracts. So why does the UAW spend obscene amounts of money in the political realm, almost all of it in support of Democratic candidates or left-wing causes?
Are these causes helping the little people? I have attached a link to the UAW Political site. I cannot find a position where the UAW and democratic party differ.
http://www.uaw.org/cap/07/issues/index.p...
Are all the local members registered democrates?
Jan 15, 2008 at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
$62 per hour ???? I would not consider that "little people".
Jan 15, 2008 at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
I can't Belive anything when I see JD's picture next to it. Him & the truth don't go together. UAW has sold out its members But do they understand that without members they wouldn't be. GM needs to sell cars but at what mark up. You can't bust the little people to make the big bigger for long
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.